Jeez, I took a look at your stuff on e-bay. Man, you're really a messy monk. But that brings me to a serious question: If one owns to much stuff, could it be that it blocks your look on what really counts in Zen (even if you sit down and shut up)?

Imagine my surprise when my mother (72 years old) told me about this punk-rocker Zen priest in her current issue of the Catholic Reporter. [laugh] I knew who it had to be right away. I think she was surprised that I also had both of your books. Take care and keep on keepin' on.

Remember what I said about dialect, jargon, idioms, and slang? Add time. Words change colors over time. Hell, it was not even until the last 15 of 20 years that scholars (anywhere) could read Biblical Hebrew. Heretofore, they were just making (poorly) educated guesses.

So to with Pali Sanskrit.

12. THE ROOTS OF PECULIARITIES OF LANGUAGE USE IN BUDDHISM: Some of the peculiar characteristics of language use in Buddhism stem from its preference for the dialects and languages used by people as ordinary language, the resistance to the use of a standardized closed system like Sanskrit, the emergence of frozen expressions in languages and dialects originally used, the necessity to standardize the terms within the discourse, and the use of Sanskrit later on as one of the languages of Buddist expression and theological exposition, and popular currency of Hybrid Buddhist Sanskrit. Conze (1959) identifies several interesting characteristics of language use in Buddhism. First, the diction in Buddhism has its own peculiarities. These may be due to the belief that Gautama Buddha was no ordinary being. He is a "god-like being" and that there was something numinous about the diction he used. Such usage departed from the standards of normal Indian usage … Buddhist writings, with few exceptions, are full of the artificews of Sanskrit rhetoric. … Far more intractable is the difficulty presented by the technical terms which abound everywhere. In the original they are quite inconspicuous, but in all translations into non-Indian languages they stand out like so many foreign bodies. The Chinese either retained them in Sanskrit, or coined some strange neologism. 'Dharma', in particular, is deliberately ambiguous, with up to ten meanings. … In this respect, as in much else, they differ radically from contemporary 'linguistic analysts'. Buddhist thinkers had weighty reasons for preferring ambiguous, multivalent terms, … The authors of the Buddhist Scriptures were in fact unwilling, or unable, to state their message without a liberal use of technical terms. … The Scriptures as they stand cannot be read without some mental effort, and they demand a minimum of intellectual agility and attainment. … A great deal of Indian thought, on the contrary, is enshrined in memorial verses of almost unbelievable precision. (Conze, 1959:13-16). In other words, the Buddhist language use became obtuse over the centuries.

I hate to split hairs, Mysterion, but Hebrew texts have been studied continuously (and vigorously) by scholars for two thousand years.

You are 100% right that there has been some amazing work in the study of classical Hebrew in the past 30 years (thanks in part to Nag Hammadi & the Dead Sea Scrolls). But it's not fair to call everything before that guesswork.

After all, you can't judge the entire field based on people like John Dee or Alister Crowley. That's like saying modern Judaism is best represented by Madonna giving Britney Spears a book on Qabalah.

Brad, you've been very busy on your blog and I thank you for it. The subject matter has been right where I need to be and what you've had to say has been just what I've been needing to hear.I hate to admit it--I think anonymous at 10:46 am is right in urging you to go to Montreal.In my most unselfish moments I think leaving is better for you--certainly better for whatever town you end up in and better for the folks who get to sit with you.And while we're lucky to have you here--I'm glad of it!I hope all gets cleaned up in the apartment plumbing situation. There are some good natural odor buster type things out there. I'll have to bring some to Hill St.

It's totally amazing to me, everyone is thinking the kitten on SC post is cute. The cat, being a predator, is trying to kill that toy! If we were mouse sized the cat will kill and eat us. I think the video goes better with the communitation article than the compassion one.

My pet parrot plays with cat toys, people usually just think he is weird.

Mr. Burke did a job good being with the interview. He didn't resort to cheap shots and didn't claim to be something he wasn't. there are enlightened christians and ignorant buddhists in this world as is apparent to any reader of this blog..

Brad - that was a good read. The guy asked some decent questions. Unless it was edited, it probably only took you guys a few minutes to do. I would love to read a long, in-depth PLAYBOY style interview. :)

Did that dude erase his earlier posts? So he wouldn't look so much like an asshole? Note the (not so) subtle disrespect and anger in that *mysterious post decrying anger. Hoist to your own dumpy petard again, after all these years. tee hee.

1) as bedtime stories for children - classical folklore 'Childern's and Household Fables.'2) to explain the patterns of stars in the sky (including the Great Ages like 'Adam & Eve' = Gemeni, etc.)3) for an elite Priestly Class to claim power over 'mere mortals' (Buddha rejected the Brahmas)

By far my favorite is M44. The whole story of Jupiter (Dios P'ter - Heavenly Father) seeding the manger of Jesus Xmas fame is there...

Very cool (and quintessentially American) blog. I hope the following will be of some help: James' "Varieties of Religious Experience" provides an interesting introduction to pragmatism, going into why some may prefer particular paths. But it runs the whole gamut--and the answers we get depend largely on not only who, when and where we are (in all senses of the word), but upon the language(s) we have learned, the questions we are able personally at this point to ask within this bounded language, and on where we focus: the social, the economic, the family, the individual, the nation-state...historically, sociologically, psychologically, biologically, in terms of area, textual studies, rituals, and so forth. And then of course there are the epistemological questions--what can we know about, well, anything? For those of you with access to journals, check out jstor and others...there's more serious dialog (academia is like an awesome superblog, with peer review) than could be read in a lifetime. One can't possibly, of course, even begin to summarize it in this format, though I imagine I just attempted...

The Buddha was not as interested in those questions as he was interested in the causes of true happiness--in suffering (personal, mental, suffering) and the end of suffering. These require us to focus in different ways than the normal, untrained person--we see things in terms of the three characteristics (things--dharmas, emotions--being shot through with emptiness) and the four noble truths. The more this is done, the more the dharmas become transparent, and the more we can see...well, the more we see. I hope this has been helpful. It's just a matter of practicing as honestly as one can, and I hope I haven't appeared arrogant or anything; I'm not any sort of lineage holder, I just really appreciate a group of people impelled toward truth.

"In my mind, Buddhism is NOT a narrow religion but rather a broad philosophy upon which some traditions have built religions. I adhere to no tradition (or religion) but rather question them all."

Mysterion -- if you visited a nearby synagogue, you'd meet some people who are tradition- and culture-bound. And you'd find others who understand that underlying the ten thousand things is one thing (ehad), and that existence is impermancence (eyeh-asher-eyeh, "I am/will be/am becoming whatsover I am/will be/am becoming." And that everything is to be questioned and examined. And that reason is a supreme faculty.

And if you visted your local zendo, you might find all those insights. And you might find people who are tradition- and culture-bound.

No, I am what I am (and NOT what I think). Traditionally I am told I error toward Jodo Shu - conservative.

"Or is your devotion to no-faith sort of a faith?

Devotion is a hollow straw man. I read everything but believe nothing. The Secret Initiations of the Alawi on one hand or the Druze on the other - might come to mind. Druze test for knowledge of Egyptian mysticism, of which the Druze claim to be the guardians.

Soto Zen Buddhism is a very stripped down efficient practical philosophy. Brad's version is even leaner than most. If you want to tie red ribbons on it and chant a lot you can make it a religion but at the core it's not one.

I'm not sure I follow you, Mr. Mysterion. I thought you were about to call me out, but then you went all off topic on us.

You said that the Hebrew language "completely disappeared at least TWICE." (BTW, how can something "completely disappear" twice?)

That's simply not true.

(I so wanted to just explain my point, provide factual evidence, and stop right there. But I can't. Mr. Warner, if you read this, all I can say is that I was also born in Hamilton-- where we learn early on not to take shit.)

Mysterion:

*You're not the only one who wrote a dissertation.

*If you're going to cite evidence, make it relevant. What the hell does theistic evolution have to do with the Hebrew language?

*Don't cite theories that were laughed out of scholarly circles sixty years ago. Such as theistic evolution.

*If said theories concern Sir Frazier, then at least link to his work and not some poorly researched internet imitation.

*But read Wittgenstein first and learn why nobody quotes Frazier.

*I said you're wrong to say that Hebrew disappeared. I didn't ask you how many bricks there are in my neighbor's garage. And I sure as all hell didn't ask for your manifesto.

To help would-be speakers and readers of Hebrew, Ben-Yehuda began to compile a dictionary. Actually, he started the dictionary as an aid for himself when he was still in Paris, and at first it contained simply a short bilingual list in Hebrew and French written in the back of the notebook he used to write down his grocery lists.HERE

This first paragraph is well off subject (ZEN)... The second attempts to restore focus.

If you were to go back and follow all my links, you too might learn that your scholars were looking at 'written hebrew' and making assumptions that turned out to be much less than accurate (e.g. a name place Bashan is NOT a serpent, viper.)HEREIdiomatic Yiddish, even when written in the Hebrew alphabet is not biblical.

In the spirit of this blog, me post was SPECIFICALLY about the loss of cognitive equivalents IN BUDDHISM through distortions of dialect, jargon, idioms, slang, and time. It turns out that Jedeo-Xtian scholars are painfully (albeit recently) aware of these common barriers and using this parlance was light support for the underlying problem with BUDDHIST writing.

You don't get it. The fact that Hebrew kept being read by the learned doesn't mean that the language was still used. Like Latin some decades ago, people read it, but almost no one actually used it for normal everyday communication. That's what is meant here. At the time of Herod, and of Rabbi Yehoshua ben Yossef (jesus) no one used Hebrew in Palestine. They only spoke Aramaic. Which doesn't mean no one knew Hebrew. Some knew it. But it wasn't everyday use.

Four Zen monks were meditating in a monastery. All of a sudden the prayer flag on the roof started flapping. The younger monk came out of his meditation and said: "Flag is flapping" A more experienced monk said: "Wind is flapping" A third monk who had been there for more than 20 years said: "Mind is flapping." The fourth monk who was the eldest said, visibly annoyed: "Mouths are flapping!"

"I apologize if that seems like an evasive answer. I had no intention of being evasive but have no other words to apply to point to the point."

No intention? You did disagree with my statement concerning allowing different ways to different people. Evasive, yes. Explain intolerance with self-denial... I regret I was so selfish really caring about what you said.

Suzuki Roshi came to my house in Redwood City for meetings for a few months. On one occasion, he left his small emblematic stick. I thought that he might want it before the Sunday meeting in San Francisco, so I stopped by the Temple (then on Bush Street) to leave it.

He was there and when I handed it to him, I asked what the Japanese characters on it meant. "WHATEVER YOU SAY IS NOT THE TRUTH," he replied. Thinking that he had misunderstood me, I repeated the question, with the same result. I thought, silently, how true that is.

Shut up and Sit Down? Isn't it a bit ironic that nobody on this blog, including the author of that book, seem very interested in following that advice? Since Brad chose the title, I'm thinking he might have been giving some pretty good advice to himself (that he just couldn't take, said Alanis).

Also, I can't figure out if Mysterion is a reincarnation of Heidegger or Yeats with all that imponderable, thoroughly obfuscated non-sequituresque obsidian. Maybe we should ask our man The D-Lama... Anybody have any ideas?

what i meant is that assfaces like yourself deliberately refuse to see others' points. I made a point that the fans and authors of a book called sit down and shut up were interested in anything but, and you studiously ignored my point. instead, you made a retardo-matic comment like a flunked-out community college loser. boy, it's a good thing we're both anonymouses standing up and screaming. Get it now puckerface?

I just moved across the border from Ohio to Indiana, put my two weeks notice in at the shitty factory job I had been working at for years, and just finished fall the craziest fall semester I have ever had. I just hope I passed Japanese class, it was the most difficult class I have ever taken.

When I was in junior high school I believed I was the reincarnation of Alexander the great. I don't believe that anymore but I might have a tad of his DNA -)

I knew a lot about Alex and could tell you whatever you wanted to know about him (based on my reincarnated memories and the books and movies I saw).

The truth is I don't really know anything about Alex. Most of the subject matter of this thread doesn't interest me but the exchanges between participants and the way people communicate is interesting.thank you